[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5714F110.2080101@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:37:04 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
CC: <acme@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<pi3orama@....com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] perf tools: Derive trigger class from
auxtrace_snapshot
On 2016/4/18 22:29, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:20:23PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>
>> On 2016/4/18 21:45, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 06:32:08AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote:
>>>> Use 'trigger' to model operations which need to be executed when
>>>> an event (a signal, for example) is observed.
>>>>
>>>> States and transits:
>>>>
>>>> OFF--(on)--> READY --(toggle)--> TOGGLED --(process)--> PROCESSING
>>>> ^ | |
>>>> | | |
>>>> | (ready) (ready)
>>>> | | |
>>>> \__________________/______________________/
>>>>
>>>> is_toggled and is_ready are two key functions to query the state of
>>>> a trigger. is_toggled means the event already happen; is_ready means the
>>>> trigger is waiting for the event.
>>>>
>>>> 'PROCESSING' represents a state the event happens and be observed, and
>>>> the processing is on the way so can't accept a new event immediately.
>>> hum, I must be missing something.. but I dont see how you're
>>> using this state except for smal window within:
>>>
>>> if (auxtrace_snapshot_is_toggled()) {
>>> -> auxtrace_snapshot_process();
>>> if (!auxtrace_snapshot_is_error())
>>> -> record__read_auxtrace_snapshot(rec);
>>>
>>> but no other place queries or depends on this state
>> Right.
>>
>> Since we are creating a new class, I think we can make code simpler by
>> merging
>> all state variables into trigger.
>>
>> Without this state we must keep 'auxtrace_record__snapshot_started'.
> do we? we dont need this for switch_output code apparently
I think it is a good chance to clean existing code.
However, number of lines introduced to .h in patch 1/6 is more than
lines removed from .c. So I think removing the 'PROCESSING' is okay.
If in future we find switch_output also need this state we can add it
back at that time.
Please wait for v5.
Thank you.
> jirka
>
>> I think merging it into trigger class makes the whole program a little
>> bit simpler. Or do you think keeping trigger class simpler whould be better?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists